Ronaldo Ghenov wrote:What are the best resources for a better understanding of conjunctions stringed together

Smyth has some thing s to say, no surprise.

Here is a little excerpt and a web address..

2813
καὶ γάρ has in general two distinct meanings according as γάρ is an adverb or a conjunction. As καὶ γάρ has become a formula, it is often uncertain which of the two words is the adverb, which the conjunction.

2814
(I) καὶ γάρ and in fact, and indeed, καί being a conjunction, and γάρ an adverb. Here the clause in which καὶ γάρ stands is added as a new and important thought; where γάρ alone would state the reason or the explanation with less independence and with slighter emphasis. The negative is οὐδὲ γάρ. Thus Κῦρος δ' ὁρῶν τοὺς Ἕλληνας νι_κῶντας τὸ καθ' αὑτοὺς . . . ἐπεμελεῖτο ὅ τι ποιήσει βασιλεύς. καὶ γὰρ ᾔδει αὐτὸν ὅτι μέσον ἔχοι τοῦ Περσικοῦ στρατεύματος on seeing the Greeks victorious over the troops opposed to them, Cyrus watched to see what the king would do; and in fact he knew that he commanded the centre of the Persian force X. A. 1.8.21 (cp. cross1. 1. 6, 2. 5. 5, 2. 6. 2). So often in affirmative responses: ἢ οὐκ ἀγαπήσεις τούτων τυγχάνων; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ἂν ἀγαπῴην. καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ, ἔφη or will you not be content if you obtain this? For my part I shall be. And so shall I, he said P. R. 473b.

But this is a very unpleasant way to read Smyth. You would be much better off downloading the big pdf file and finding paragraph 2813 and following. See the discussion on B-Greek about Smyth. It will show you all links and info you need.

Revisions were very very minor, judging from a) the admission of the publishers in the newer edition, and b) the fact that they used the very same plates from 1920.

George, how is the Logos version. Easily searched... easy to read? Smyth as a stand-alone in Logos is $40. Considering that there is an online version and a free pdf version, you'd think they'd give a discount price on it. Is Smyth part of one of Logos's new Bronze/Silver/Gold etc packages with the new Logos 5?

It's my understanding that particles with conjunctions in the Koine tend to be used with less distinction that in Attic. That said, isn't Denniston's Greek Particles the place to go to find a really good range of explanation and contrast? http://books.google.com/books?id=v8BnIH ... +particles

Thank you so much for your thoughts on Denniston's The Greek Particle. I'm pondering adding that to my resources! What are your thoughts or, perhaps better (= I'm trying to be quite respectful of your time), could you direct my attention to an online article(s) which would discuss benefits/dangers of using a Classicist understanding of Greek in the exegesis of Koine texts?

Thank you so much for your thoughts on Denniston's The Greek Particle. I'm pondering adding that to my resources! What are your thoughts or, perhaps better (= I'm trying to be quite respectful of your time), could you direct my attention to an online article(s) which would discuss benefits/dangers of using a Classicist understanding of Greek in the exegesis of Koine texts?

Ronaldo,

In regard to Denniston's Greek Particles I suggest browsing this work before purchase if at all possible. I owned a used copy for decade and found it difficult to use. Denniston assumed his readers would have a broad general knowledge of the Greek and Latin classics. Denniston is occasionally more dogmatic than the evidence justifies. His commentary on Agamemnon is frequently very dogmatic and dismissive of alternate ways of reading the text. His greek particles is praised to the skies by Guy Cooper (Greek Syntax) but Cooper regularly disagrees with him.

Runge and Levinsohn are books on text linguistics. They cover conjunctions but from a framework that many NT greek people find strange and hard to digest. I've been reading Levinsohn for 15 years and he now makes sense.